[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: free software
Well I believe that Free software and Open Source are often used
synonymously. Open Cource gives you the freedom to modify/improve the
software and not stop it from eveolving. Anything without that is like
Gene-Modified software which cannot evolve in any way other than the
proprietary path chosen by the creator of the software.
The kind of licences which do not encorage innovation and evolution is
necessarily doomed even if it has the best legal and marketing muscle. ( MS
has more lawers and accountants than software developers).
I beleive that it is the buyer's right to get the source code for the
software if the person so desires without cost. What you need to pay for is
servicing and packaging, and in case it promises to do something for the
risk and guarantees which by and large are very poor in a field which is yet
to mature completely.
From: Naksi Ink <naksink@xxxxxxxx>
To: Monica Narula <monica@xxxxxxxxx>; Jeebesh bagchi <jeebesh@xxxxxxxxx>;
Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha@xxxxxxxxx>; Ravi Sundaram <ravis@xxxxxxxxx>;
Ravi Vasudevan <raviv@xxxxxxxxx>; Saumya Gupta <sgupta@xxxxxxxxx>; Supreet
Sethi <supreet@xxxxxxxxx>; Pankaj Kaushal <pankaj@xxxxxxxxx>; Ruchika
Agarwal <ruchika@xxxxxxxxx>; Ravikant <ravikant@xxxxxxxxx>; Deepu Sharan
<sharan@xxxxxxxxx>; Aditya Nigam <aditya@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:32 PM
Subject: [linux-delhi] free software
>I have some problem regarding the argument raised against the proprietary
>model of software. The argument is, information or knowledge never
>diminishes as it is shared. So it can be shared freely and should be
>non-proprietary. It means this argument establishes the argument for the
>proprietary model of such commodities, which are perished with usage and
>consumption. It provides legitimation to the whole model of market economy,
>which is based on proprietorship. The argument of non-proprietary software
>movement basically establishes the supremacy of proprietary model and
>defines itself as an exception rather than upholding a holistic attitude
>towards all the commodities used by mankind.
>This argument raised by custodian of free-software community tries to
>out themselves from the rest of the society as a special case. It doesn?t
>challenge the accumulation and protection of wealth. Rather exploits the
>material limitation of other commodities for its expansion and growth.
>Indirectly it actually opposes the free availability and distribution of
>perishable commodities and justifies the exploitive nature of market
>economy. I find that theory very selfish theory. It actually means if
>knowledge diminishes by sharing they will never share it!!
>Their theory doesn?t guarantee against the blockage of knowledge to protect
>the power acquired through control over knowledge. Because according to the
>theory if anything diminishes as a result of sharing they are not going to
>do it. I am raising this point because certain kind of knowledge requires
>certain kind of access, which is dependent on wealth and power. Knowledge
>not only matter of information but also matter of infrastructure.
>Infrastructure is a perishable commodity. In many cases just availability
>books or CD does not help, instruments and hardware are extremely important
>which they think should be proprietary because those things are perishable.
>This means they want and at the same time they don?t want free distribution
>of knowledge!! It looks as if it demands respectable status of non-criminal
>act within the value system of market economy.
>Rather I recommend that argument might be, every commodity ideally should
>freely available and non-proprietary but in market economy something like
>certain form of information can only be circulated freely because it does
>not require accumulation of wealth to reproduce.
>My concern is free software movement should not be seen and identified as
>isolated event with which larger section of the community can not
>communicate. Rather it should be seen as a part of larger social
>One more important point I would like to discuss. If we condemn cracking it
>means we are condemning stealing. Though stealing might not be a
>act and as I am not elaborating but I would like to put some light on the
>fact that we have lots of facts and fictions which try to examine the act
>stealing. Some time they even end up justifying it! We have seen lots of
>Hindi films and some stories and novels on this subject. I just want to say
>we can see the word and act of cracking more critically rather than
>condemning it just by saying ?hacking is not cracking?. As sometime we try
>to see software piracy critically.
>An alpha version of a web based tool to manage
>your subscription with this mailing list is at